Your team’s recent research has brought long-overdue recognition to the community of Ban Yai Yaem Watthana and their decades-long memories of the Plai Bat II bronzes, part of the so-called Prakhon Chai Hoard. What were some of the most compelling oral histories you uncovered, and how do these community testimonies reshape our understanding of the human cost of the looting?
Many, many years ago, we went into the village of Baan Yai Yaem, where we met villagers who helped loot artifacts from Plai Bat II Temple. It took us so many years to gain their trust and to be able to ask questions and to get honest answers from them. There was one villager, named Ta Chuey (‘Ta’ simply means grandpa, and ‘Chuey’ is his name), who told us that the Prakhon Chai hoard consists of 300 artifacts. At the time, we didn’t really pay attention to what he said. But when we heard more stories about the particular village where Plai Bat II Temple is situated, we realized that Ta Chuey’s verdict was accurate because it corroborated a writing of Mom Chao Subhadradis Diskul, or Prince Subhadradis, who was a professor at the Faculty of Archaeology at Silpakorn University.
So as years went by, we realized that Ta Chuey was not just an ordinary villager who just took part in a looting. He was also Latchford’s agent. So what he did was he would collect artifacts that the villagers had unearthed, and he would sell them to Latchford, which is why he knew the exact number of Prakhon Chai bronzes that were dug up from Plai Bat II Temple.
With your 2024 findings confirming Douglas Latchford’s direct role in the removal of bronzes from Plai Bat II, how can museums and private collectors work in good faith with Thailand to support the repatriation process—and what responsibilities do they carry once provenance concerns have been raised?
In the past, museums and private collectors have never helped us in the repatriation process. Private collectors have never contacted us, and European and American museums make it difficult for Homeland Security to even process repatriations because they never accept that they purchased illegal artifacts from Latchford, or from collectors who purchased their artifacts from Latchford and his network.
I think that the parties who have really helped the most are journalists and media agencies. In the case of the Golden Boy, for instance, journalists and media agencies (particularly CNA in Singapore, The Denver Post from the United States, some Thai media outlets) were instrumental in helping us bring the artifact back. And with all of the media outlets and journalists that have visited us and asked us to take them to Plai Bat II Temple, these cases have been made global, and people have been able to hear these villagers’ stories.
Latchford employed a transnational network involving local collaborators, international dealers, and powerful institutions to rob Thailand of some 300 bronzes, according to your findings. What does the case of Plai Bat II reveal about how organized crime intersects with the global art market—and how can the public help disrupt these illicit systems?
In the last 10 years or so, since my interest in Plai Bat II Temple and the Prakhon Cha Hoard started, no one from the general public has ever helped us in the repatriation process. Even some middle class Thai people ask questions like, “Why do you need to bring these artifacts back to Thailand when they’re already safely displayed—and so much better off—in American or European Museums?” These questions demoralized us at first, but we’re quite familiar with them now. The general public has never really been supportive of our campaign. If anyone has been helpful, it’s been the media. It’s only the press that has made this matter global and public.
As Thailand prepares to welcome back bronzes from the Asian Art Museum, how can these returns serve as a catalyst for healing, education, and renewed cultural stewardship? What message do you hope this moment sends to the next generation of scholars, policymakers, and museum professionals?
The village needs to own the bronzes that are returned to Thailand. It shouldn’t be the National Museum that has the rights to own or display Prakhon Chai bronzes but rather the village that they originate from. And villagers are very active in trying to get the bronzes back. We think that they feel a sort of guilt at their role in the looting, and, as a way of redemption, they’ve organized rituals regarding the Plai Bat II Temple now. Every year, they have a yearly festival to bring people from all across Thailand to the temple. So, we think that bringing the bronzes back to the village would be a sort of reparation not only from the entities who now hold them but also for the villagers who once aided in their plunder.
*This interview was translated by Dr. Lalita Hanwong and transcribed by the Antiquities Coalition. Any inaccuracies or mistakes are ours alone.
